Ah, right. No women in tech because they're not very good at it. Gotcha.
I only say there must be a level playing field so that hard working women get same chances as men.
Reservations create a scenario where you are lower the entry bar for A group of people. While keeping it high for B group of people. Net result is there will no motivation for A set of people to try anything extra since they are guaranteed an entry anyway. At the same a certain set of people from B will stop doing any good work because regardless of their work, A's are going to get their chances.
The whole system collapses.
India has tried this for the past 60 years. The situation has only gone worse.
Work should be done to help women win without reservations.
"Reservations" or whatever you want to call them are lowering the bar to the same level as other people, but of course the "B"s are going to scream blue murder because they now have to work instead of cruising.
Why are they a minority in tech in the first place? Well video games got me and most of my friends into tech, and when I was in high-school in the mid 90s most girls abhorred games and considered them childish and geeky. It was a serious social faux pas to be a tech geek who loved hacking around with computers and playing video games. I never met a single girl in the 90s who was into it beyond playing an occasional game of Mario Kart.
Who are we to blame for that?
The problem needs to be fixed at the middle school level (or earlier) where girls are discouraged from technical subjects.
In all my four years of Engineering course. There wasn't one single girl in all four batches of Mechanical Engineering branch.
Are there cases where a talk from a woman was judged not because of its merit but because the speaker's gender?
If all woman who have good talks are getting their chances, I don't even see a problem here.
Not only is it a strawman argument, but it also reiterates sexist claims about women. At best, your comment gets ignored and worst, the comment will work against creating gender equality.
> If some one is good, they will win anyway. If they are not, they can't and won't.
The conclusion from that is that the lack of women in tech is because they're not very good at it. If women were good at tech, then from his statement there would be more of them (they would "win anyway").
This is clearly absurd - hence he's wrong, or at least needs to support/make his argument a little better.
Do I really need to stick </sarcasm> tags on everything?